Background[ edit ] The concept of eugenics had been put forward in by Francis Galtonwho also coined the name.
These are not the words of alarmists but are taken from a Department of Health publication in and a ministerial foreword to an earlier departmental publication. The court found that government had not reasonably addressed the need to reduce the risk of HIV-positive mothers transmitting the disease to their babies at birth.
More specifically the finding was that government had acted unreasonably in a refusing to make an antiretroviral drug called nevirapine  available in the public health sector where the attending doctor considered it medically indicated and b not setting out a timeframe for a national programme to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV.
The respondents were the national Minister of Health and the respective members of the executive councils MECs responsible for health in all provinces save the Western Cape. This is where the first of two main issues in the case arose.
The applicants contended that these restrictions are unreasonable when measured against the Constitution, which commands the state and all its organs to give effect to the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
This duty is put thus by sections 7 2 and 8 1 of the Constitution respectively: These rights are expressed in the following terms in the Bill of Rights: It is whether government is constitutionally obliged and had to be ordered forthwith to plan and implement an effective, comprehensive and progressive programme for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV throughout the country.
The applicants also relied on other provisions of the Constitution which, in view of our conclusions, need not be considered. They are supported by a number of experts and by the administrative heads of the respective provincial health departments.
Although the two main issues relate to government policy, as distinct from mere administration, neither the Minister nor any of the MECs was a deponent. Its main provisions were the following: It is declared that the respondents are under a duty forthwith to plan an effective comprehensive national programme to prevent or reduce the mother-to-child transmission of HIV, including the provision of voluntary counselling and testing, and where appropriate, Nevirapine or other appropriate medicine, and formula milk for feeding, which programme must provide for its progressive implementation to the whole of the Republic, and to implement it in a reasonable manner.
The respondents are ordered forthwith to plan an effective comprehensive national programme to prevent or reduce the mother-to-child transmission of HIV, including the provision of voluntary counselling and testing, and where appropriate, Nevirapine or other appropriate medicine, and formula milk for feeding, which programme must provide for its progressive implementation to the whole of the Republic, and to implement it in a reasonable manner.
At the commencement of the appeal hearing we dismissed a belated application for admission as an additional amicus curiae and an application by an amicus to adduce evidence.
The High Court had also granted an application by the Premier of KwaZulu-Natal to be substituted for his MEC for Health and that substitution gave rise to both an appeal to this Court and an application to present further evidence.
These were heard immediately after argument in the main proceedings had ended and both were refused at the time, the reasons to follow.
Then, some days after the hearing, the Court addressed an enquiry to the parties which, instead of enlightenment, unfortunately elicited a great deal of contention and yet another application to adduce further evidence, dealt with below.
This judgment focuses on the principal issues and these minor matters will be dealt with either in passing or in separate judgments. Factual background  The two principal issues had been in contention between the applicants and government for some considerable time prior to the launching of the application in the High Court.
Thus, when the TAC in September pressed for acceleration of the government programme for the prevention of intrapartum mother-to-child transmission of HIV, it was told by the Minister that this could not be done because there were concerns about, among other things, the safety and efficacy of nevirapine.
Nearly a year later in Augustfollowing the 13th International AIDS Conference in Durban and a follow-up meeting attended by the Minister and the MECs, the Minister announced that nevirapine would still not be made generally available.
Instead each province was going to select two sites for further research and the use of the drug would be confined to such sites. The result is that doctors in the public sector, who do not work at one of those pilot sites, are unable to prescribe this drug for their patients, even though it has been offered to the government for free.
The undertakings requested were neither given nor refused outright. In terms of this Act registration of a drug by definition entails a positive finding as to its quality, safety and efficacy.
In January the World Health Organization recommended the administration of the drug to mother and infant at the time of birth in order to combat HIV and between November and April the Medicines Control Council settled the wording of the package insert dealing with such use.
The insert was formally approved by the Council in April and the parties treated that as the date of approval of the drug for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV. At the time it appeared that this date might be relevant and that nevirapine may have been approved for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission earlier than April In the result, however, nothing turns on this.
That being the case, further evidence directed to this issue is irrelevant.U.S. Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, U.S. () Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Argued December 9, Reargued December 8, Decided May 17, * APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN . CHARLES H. BEERY In according recognition in this compilation to the representative citizens of Payne County there is all of consistency in entering a brief review of the career of this honored pioneer and influential business man of Stillwater, where he is engaged in the produce and coal trade and controls a large commission business.
Listen to a podcast about the Supreme Court landmark case Brown v. Board of Education. 🔥Citing and more! Add citations directly into your paper, Check for unintentional plagiarism and check for writing mistakes. BROWN ET AL. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA ET AL.
No. 1. Argued December 9, Reargued December 8, In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, Brown v. Board of Education, US - Supreme Court - Google Scholar. Brown v. Board of Education (), now acknowledged as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the 20th century, unanimously held that the racial segregation of children in public schools.